darthfandomcom-20200214-history
Forum:Anti single cruft dumpingground on Featured or Good articles policy
For quite a while I've seen users creating an article like Darth ''', making him an apprentice to lets say Elmo and adding one or two lines in the Elmo article linking to their own. After a while our featured articles become really messy which will eventually mean we'll have to strip some of our featured articles from their status or completely remove all those single line cruft spam links from them. Since we have no real continuity to defend here I don't see any reason we have to change the main body of a featured article every time someone uses an already existent character in their new article so we can easier maintain the quality of our featured sithspawn and articles of eviltude. People can still use existing Darthipedia characters in their articles, and writers do in no way have to follow the storylines of said characters in their own articles, for instance if someone wants to say Darth Elmo was a female Jedi they can. If they do want to add a link to their own article on a Featured or AoE page a simple link in the See also will suffice, the same goes for the Infobox under the ''Master'' or ''Apprentice'' section if that's in any way relevant. Proposal: No more adding one or two lines ( read unsubstantial writing ) to your own character in the main body of already Featured or Good articles. References to new work can be placed either in the ''See also'' section at the bottom of the page or in the articles ''Infobox'' next to the relevant section. These edits may be reverted either with a link to this policy in the editsummary or rollbacked with a message about this policy on the author in question's talkpage. Support #as proposer '''Madclaw [[User talk:Madclaw|''Shyriiwook!]] 15:35, December 9, 2009 (UTC) #Very Strong Support. --[[User:Jedimca0|'Jedimca0']](Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 15:37, December 9, 2009 (UTC) #Support. -MercTalk to Me. 16:51, December 9, 2009 (UTC) #Support, but only if it's a bannable offence...just kidding. 19:47, December 9, 2009 (UTC) #In Soviet Russia, proposal supports YOU!! --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 20:42, December 9, 2009 (UTC) #Stronger than the strongest support. — 'SG ' 'needed' 20:58, December 9, 2009 (UTC) #Yeah, "unsubstantial" edits that break the flow. If they take time to make the edit worth something, that's different. Enochf 23:41, December 11, 2009 (UTC) #Cabal vote ftw. [[User:Greyman|'Greyman']] [[User talk:Greyman|'Talk']] 17:02, December 12, 2009 (UTC) #--'Darth tom' Message me 08:13, December 21, 2009 (UTC) Oppose Discussion *I'm all for this, but does this make FSs and AOEs untouchable? -MercTalk to Me. 15:54, December 9, 2009 (UTC) **Yes and no, the spirit of this proposal is to make sure that an FS or AoE doesn't get littered with stuff like "''he also trained Darth whatshisname" at the end of a paragraph. Additions to a FS or AoE are welcome as long as they are substantial, relevant and of good enough quality to be in the article, which they are not 99 out of 100 times. People tend to add links to their own articles in Featured or Good articles in the hopes people will see them, they still can but with restrictions. We have for that purpose. Madclaw ''Shyriiwook!'' 16:46, December 9, 2009 (UTC) **Ah okay. -MercTalk to Me. 16:51, December 9, 2009 (UTC) Something you could consider is something similar to what Wookieepedia does, where there's a giant banner on the edit page when you go to edit an FA or GA that says you can't lower the quality. It won't exactly deter people from doing just that, but at least with a giant banner you can point out how stupid they are or something. I dunno. Just a thought from your friendly neighborhood...person. Well I need to work on that catch phrase a bit. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 20:09, December 20, 2009 (UTC)